"Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk> wrote:
>So you're pointing at the current behaviour of browsers (which I'm arguing here as being flawed) to justify using a workaround? The <q> element unambiguously defines where the quote starts or ends. The browser should present this visually by adding quotes (or guillemets, or whatever depending on language-specific rules). When copy/pasting, this delimitation should also be passed along as part of the plain text. IMO, of course.
As I stated before I consider the current HTML4 spec requirement for <q>
as a design flaw and I presented a scenario that allows authors to not
let that flaw affect the content they author today. This scenario allows
inline quotes to be machine identifiable, it results in quote characters
being copy'able, and it displays correctly in the current crop of
browsers.
What is it that you are objecting to?
>> Can you present a use case where the distinction is relevant if the
>> ability to reference by marker is dealt with by including such
>> references as part of the content proper?
>
>I'm not talking about referencing by marker. I'm talking about denoting, in a copy/pasted bit of text, that something was an ordered list rather than an unordered one.
And you get that (and more reliably) when as I suggest the markers are
included in the content proper.
--
Spartanicus